’WPCr! …# VU>a %Ÿ 0ķ„UB’ 4Ō č n­÷ U:¤ Ž w@ę 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0r’ 0|q 0†ķ 0s 1u 0dx BÜU6łU./U*]B)‡DC° D3ó AM&is 0@ÜƒŻŸv~|vÓś AOĶĘ 0Dā D/&! BU!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhĪ<čĄ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕŠ$””Ń  ŃŃ7€'CXXdČXXdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#€%Ų'0*ˆ,ą.813č5@8˜:š<H? A°œXiÓ<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiR¦"3|x;«<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxž6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular 'E(){*D+,-./0Ӏ(į(3ė<$¤¤Ż ƒÕŠ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ7€›§XXdČdČ7ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#€%Ų'0*ˆ,ą.813č5@8˜:š<H? A°œXiÓŻ  Żą ` ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'’’dxd€-)Cž’ << G’’ _Ż ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŌ€'ŌŌ€'ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€'XŌĢĢņ ņMay€22,€1997ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€'ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ yŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŌ€%ōŌŌ€'ŌŃ7Ą›§XXdČdČ7Ńą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  Śóó€The€petition€also€alleges€that€the€petitioner€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļthat€resulted€in€an€involuntary€plea€to€another€offense.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€does€not€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļchallenge€the€trial€courtššs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€with€respect€to€the€other€conviction.€Ģ ÓŻ ƒ!ŻŃ#€d#ŃŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  ŻŻ ƒ$Żą ąņņŚ  ŚŚ  ŚóóŻ  Ż€Ō€'ŌŌ€'ōŌFor€post„conviction€petitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995,€petitioners€have€the€burden€of€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļproving€factual€allegations€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€T.C.A.€šš€40„30„210(f).ĢPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  h HD: Geneva ŅŅ  h HD: Geneva Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€%ŌŃ  ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ#€&&Xd#ŃŃ  ŃÓ` °˜XÓŻ  Ż›Ń  ŃŃ Ü ŃŅ  ŅŅ ° ŅŅ  ŅŅ X ŅŃ\R AŲ'\ŃÓÓŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŌ€'ŌŃ7€ ¬‘ XXdęXXdČ7ŃŽ ŽĢ€ą8 ąą@ ąIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜Ł€€ŁßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@’Rߛą@ ąAT€KNOXVILLEą@ ą€€€€€€€€€Ģą ąą ą€€€€€€€€€€€€JANUARY€1997€SESSIONĢĢÓÓRICHARD€GARY€œHORTON,ą ą)›ą ąĢ€ą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąAppellant,ą ąą ą)ą ą€No.€03C01„9604„CR„00161Ģą ą€€€€€ą ąą ą€€ą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ą€Hamilton€CountyĢv.ą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ą€Honorable€Stephen€M.€Bevil,€Judge€€€€€€Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ą ą€€€ą ą)ą ą€(Post„Conviction)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€Ģą ąAppellee.ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąĢĢņņFor€the€Appellantóó:ą ąą ąą ąą ąņņFor€the€Appelleeóó:ĢĢRobert€N.€Meeks€ą ąą ąą ąą ąCharles€W.€BursonĢ3505€Brainerd€Roadą ąą ąą ąAttorney€General€of€TennesseeĢP.O.€Box€8086ą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąandą ąą ąą ąą ąĢChattanooga,€TN€37414ą ąą ąą ąSarah€M.€BranchĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąCounsel€for€the€StateĻą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą450€James€RobertsonĻParkwayą ąą ąĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąNashville,€TN€37243„0493ĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąWilliam€H.,€Cox,€IIIĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąDistrict€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąandĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąBates€Bryan,€Jr.Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą600€Market€Street,€Suite€310Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąChattanooga,€TN€37402ĢĢĢĢĢĢOPINION€FILED:____________________ĢĢĢAFFIRMEDĢĢJoseph€M.€TiptonĢJudgeĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢÓÓą@ ąņņņ ņO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óĢĢą ąThe€petitioner,€Richard€Gary€Horton,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theĻHamilton€County€Criminal€Courtššs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€ĻThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€received€a€ten„year€sentence.€€This€court€affirmed€the€petitionerššs€conviction.€€ņņState€v.€Richard€GaryĻHortonóó,€No.€03C01„9306„CR„00172,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Dec.€2,€1993),Ļņņappóó.€ņņdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Apr.€4,€1994).€€On€March€27,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€a€ņņproóó€ņņseóóĻpost„conviction€petition.€€Counsel€was€appointed€and€filed€an€amended€petition€thatĻalleges€that€the€petitionerššs€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€the€facts€ofĻthe€case€and€that€the€petitionerššs€due€process€and€equal€protection€rights€wereĶviolated€because€he€was€initially€indicted€for€reckless€endangerment€but€was€indictedĻfor€attempted€first€degree€murder€in€retaliation€for€his€refusal€to€plead€guilty.× ƒ. ××  ׀€The€trialĻcourt€dismissed€the€petition€after€an€evidentiary€hearing,€concluding€that€the€petitionerĻfailed€to€establish€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€or€that€theĻattempted€first€degree€murder€indictment€was€the€result€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness.€ĻThe€sole€issue€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€petition€onĻthe€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€ground.€€ĢĢą ąThe€assistant€district€attorney€who€prosecuted€the€petitioner€testified€atĻthe€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing.€€He€recalled€that€the€petitioner€was€originallyĻindicted€for€reckless€endangerment.€€He€said€that€after€he€reviewed€the€file€on€the€caseĻhe€decided€to€seek€an€indictment€for€attempted€first€degree€murder€because€he€felt€thatĻthe€reckless€endangerment€charge€was€not€an€accurate€reflection€of€the€crime€that€wasĻcommitted.€€œHe›€testified€that€he€did€not€know€whether€the€evidence€that€formed€theĻbasis€for€his€decision€was€in€the€file€at€the€time€the€petitioner€was€originally€indicted€forĻreckless€endangerment.€€€€ĢĢą ąHe€denied€offering€the€petitioner€a€two„year€plea€agreement€andĻexplained€that€he€usually€writes€notes€concerning€plea€negotiations€on€the€case€file.€ĶCopies€of€the€file€folders€he€used€as€the€case€file€for€the€reckless€endangerment€andĻattempted€first€degree€murder€charges€were€introduced€into€evidence.€€The€copy€of€theĻreckless€endangerment€file€does€not€contain€any€notations€concerning€pleaĻnegotiations.€€Bright€said€that€to€his€recollection,€he€never€offered€the€œpetitioner€any›Ļplea€agreement€other€than€for€the€œpetitioner›€to€plead€guilty€and€have€a€sentencingĻhearing.ĢĢą ąThe€petitionerššs€trial€attorney€testified€that€he€had€thought€the€petitionerĻwas€very€lucky€when€he€had€only€been€indicted€for€reckless€endangerment.€€He€saidĻthat€he€and€the€petitioner€knew€that€the€state€was€going€to€seek€another€indictmentĻbefore€it€happened.€€He€explained€that€š šimmediately€or€very€quicklyšš€after€the€petitionerĻwas€indicted€on€reckless€endangerment,€the€prosecutor€told€him€that€the€state€wasĻgoing€back€to€the€grand€jury€to€get€another€indictment€on€first€degree€murder.€€TheĻattorney€said€that€he€contested€the€upgrading€of€the€charge€and€that€the€trial€courtĻruled€that€the€state€was€allowed€to€get€a€new€indictment.€ĢĢ€ą ąWith€respect€to€plea€negotiations,€the€trial€attorney€testified€that€theĻpetitioner€told€him€that€he,€the€petitioner,€had€turned€down€an€eleven„month€andĻtwenty„nine„day€sentence€at€the€preliminary€hearing€in€city€court,€before€hisĻrepresentation€of€the€petitioner€began.€€The€attorney€said€that€he€did€not€remember€theĻpetitioner€receiving€an€offer€involving€a€two„year€sentence.€€He€said€that€his€recordsĶindicated€that€the€prosecutor€had€agreed€to€consider€œa›€plea€to€aggravated€assault.€€HeĻsaid€that€his€records€also€reflect€that€the€prosecutor€told€him€to€make€an€offer€in€theĻš šhigh€numbersšš€but€that€the€petitioner€did€not€want€to€plead€to€anything€in€the€š šhighĻnumbers.šš€ĢĢą ąThe€petitioner€testified€that,€in€the€presence€of€the€trial€attorney,€theĻprosecutor€offered€him€a€two„year€plea€agreement€for€the€reckless€endangermentĻcharge.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€refused€the€offer€because€he€understood€thatĻreckless€endangerment€was€a€misdemeanor€charge€carrying€a€maximum€sentence€ofĻeleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days.€€The€petitioner€said€that€he€did€not€learn€that€theĻcharge€against€him€had€been€upgraded€from€reckless€endangerment€to€attempted€firstĻdegree€murder€until€the€day€of€trial.€€ĢĢą ąAt€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings€withĻrespect€to€the€petitionerššs€allegations€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness:ĢÓÓÓ  Óą8 ąI€see€nothing€to€indicate€that€[the€prosecutor]€did€this€out€ofĻvindictiveness€other€than€the€fact€that€he€looked€at€the€caseĻand€felt€like€based€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€theĻcharge€was€too€low€and€went€back€to€the€jury.ĢĢą8 ąą ąI€find€that€there€is€no€showing€in€any€way,€theĻdefendant€has€failed€to€carry€the€burden€of€showing€theĻprosecution€acted€vindictively€and€that€the€case€went€backĻto€the€Grand€Jury€for€reindictment€for€any€reason€other€thanĻthe€fact€that€it€was€just€a€decision€on€the€part€of€theĶprosecutor€that€the€facts€merited€a€higher€charge€and€I€findĻno€other€reason.ĢÓÓÓ  ÓĢIn€the€order€dismissing€the€petitionerššs€petition,€the€trial€court€also€noted€that€theĻprosecutorššs€decision€to€upgrade€the€charge€š šhad€nothing€to€do€with€Mr.€HortonššsĻfailure€to€plead€guilty€to€the€Reckless€Endangerment€charge.ššĢĢą ąThe€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€in€the€trial€court€to€prove€his€allegationsĻthat€would€entitle€him€to€relief€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.× ƒ/ ××  ׀€ņņBrooks€v.€Stateóó,Ļ756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€On€appeal,€we€are€bound€by€the€trialĻcourtššs€findings€unless€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€thoseĻfindings.€€ņņBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€respect,Ļthe€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€how€the€evidence€preponderates€againstĻthe€judgment€entered.€€ņņIdóó.€ĢĢą ąAs€long€as€probable€cause€exists€to€believe€that€an€offense€has€beenĻcommitted,€it€is€generally€within€the€prosecutorššs€discretion€as€to€what€charge€to€bringĻbefore€a€grand€jury.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņBordenkircher€v.€Hayesóó,€434€U.S.€357,€364,€œ98›€S.€Ct.€œ663,›Ļœ668›€(1978).€€Only€when€a€prosecutor€acts€to€retaliate€against€a€defendantššs€exercise€ofĻconstitutional€œrights›€or€to€discriminate€against€a€defendant€upon€impermissibleĶgrounds,€such€œas›€race€or€religion,€will€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€vindictiveness€beĻentertained.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2d€936,€940€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ĻThe€record€before€us€supports€the€trial€courtššs€findings€and€conclusions€that€theĻprosecutor€acted€in€good€faith€upon€the€belief€that€the€facts€warranted€a€higher€charge.€ĻThus,€no€vindictiveness€was€shown.ĢĢą ąThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€€ą ąĢĢÓÓą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ģóóą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ĢĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ĢóóGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ĢĢĢĢņņ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóĢWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€